. >> we don't believe everything should be put up to a sproept freedom to speech, freedom of religion, freedom to smaer not something we take votes on. it belongs to all of us under the constitution and that is why we have court. >> freedom to marry belongs to everyone, but what marriage is, you're talking about redefining marriage. >> marriage is not defined by who's denied it. >> this isn't "cross fire." i want to end with you. go ahead. >> an odd way to think about constitutional law to sap that the court should refrain from deciding whether something is constitutional or not, even if it would be advantageous for the nation as a whole to have the conversation continue in politics. the court is a passive body. it doesn't get to decide whether to take a case, also doesn't get to decide once a case is befores it, granted review to punt on that case simply because the politician conversation vo continue. something is either constitutional or it's not. >> and they are constitution. >> it's difficult to predict what the high court lieutenant do -- will do in a case like this, based on ob